AASI Y chromosomal lineage: haplogroup C

There was a conversation in the comments about which Y chromosomal lineages clearly descend from “Ancient Ancestral South Indians,” the people who have strong affinities to the eastern wave out of Africa. Though Y chromosomal lineage H is strongly localized to South Asia, it seems to have deep Pleistocene connections to West Asia, so that is not a clear candidate. Many “eastern” Y haplogroups have connections to East Asians, so it is not often clear which of the others might be AASI.

Reading a paper on Australian Aboriginal genetics clarified things. Many South Asian groups with no East Asian ancestry carry Y haplogroup C (e.g., Patels), which diversified 50,000 years ago between Australian/Papuans and Indians. This is clearly a reflection of deep-time connections across southern Eurasia and into Oceania.

35 thoughts on “AASI Y chromosomal lineage: haplogroup C”

  1. Yeah, C1b- M356 (formerly C5) is definitely on the list of possible pure AASI haplogroups. Speaking of deep Papuan connections- could there have been a former K2b(1) population in south Asia as a counterpart to the Papuan K2b1?

    Speaking of the Papuan K2b1, it is Papuan as opposed to Austronesian isn’t it? I noticed no K2b1 in Austronesian-descended Malagasy but I still wanted to be sure about this.

  2. Razib – Thanks for this. C1b seems possible as an AASI haplogroup but C1a seems to be North Eurasian (I believe one major clade is associated with WHG and the other with Japan) so who knows?

    C’s distribution seems very randomly scattered and there are groups from all over the subcontinent with no C at all.

    Also that link seems to be suggesting that O account for 20-30% of South Asians. That seems high no?

  3. Also are those R1b frequencies accurate?

    37% in Lambadi is probably just a product of sampling but 9.5% in Pashtuns, 8% in Balochis, 7.6 % in Pakistani Punjabis, 7.4% in Pakistani IE?

    If its predominantly Z2103 and not MM73 or something upstream of M269 then have we found a Kushan/Indo-Parthian/Indo-Scythian genetic signature? I have my doubts on the accuracy. Pakistanis on the various FTDNA project rarely turn up R1b,

  4. I guess F might be another candidate for AASI. Obviously most subclasses of mtdna M are AASI. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if most AASI ancestry is female mediated.

  5. H1, C1b1a1, and K2a1 (K-Y28299) appears to be the three dominant South Asian HG ydna before the Neolithic.

    I guess C1b1a1 and K2a1 came from the east and split from ancestors of Hoabinhian.

    H1 probably split from other West Eurasians very early – sort of how Ust Ishim split from East Eurasians soon after the East-West split.

    1. Is K found in South Asia today?
      H is most likely Western imo like you said.
      Is Ust-Ishtim East Eurasian? I thought he wasn’t particularly close to either or was some sort of Crown Eurasian. What about Oase 1 and Oase 2?
      Other thoughts:
      Does South Asia have WSHG and if so is the admixture related to y R2?
      Is there any evidence that the Saraswati river was real and would the population along it have preserved C1b the best?

      1. There’s a branch of K2a that is exclusive to South Asians, so far. It’s brother branch is NO.

        I have seen different models where Ust Ishim is placed slightly closer to East Eurasians. But it doesn’t share much drift with other East Eurasians as it split very early. Which makes it sort of almost equidistant to both East and West Eurasians, with a slight affinity towards Easterners. That’s my understanding.

        1. Yea that’s what my understanding of UI was too. Not particularly close to either but maybe a tad close to East Eurasians.

          And that branch of K2a is super rare though right?

          1. Rarer than H1 and C1b for sure. I know of only 5 samples so far, 3 in the Yfull tree and 2 are acquaintances of certain anthrogenica posters.

  6. hmm my mtK1a is still Skymother.

    But are you telling me my Y H1 is not Jungle Father! Say it ain’t so. I thought my male lineage was the most ancient and of the AASI. I may need a new type of father to clarify this

    1. H1 is jungle father. The word Jungle originated from the Sanskrit word Jangla, meaning dry lands. If DaThang’s hypothesis on its origin turns out to be true, then dry levant was their original home. 😉
      H- men took control of the jungles, anyway. They adopted to the jungles way before Iran_hg and Steppe folks.

      1. I’m hoping for ancient samples from all over India. I imagine H will be the most common haplogroup of most regions.

          1. No just my hypothesis on the basis of the fact that its been found in Neoltihic West Asia and Europe and most subclades under F are West Eurasian. Only K(xLT) has representatives in East Eurasian.

          2. The guess works well with presence of mtdna u2i and u8c in the aasi gene pool. U8c is more common in yadavs than in brahmins.

  7. I wouldn’t consider y H and mtdna U2i and U8c to be AASI though but associated with the Western component of ASI. I think most AASI ancestry is related to mtdna M (although some subclades of mtdna M in South Asia might be East Asian proper).

    Also U2i should be separated between U2a/U2b and U2c because U2c is a sister clade to West Asian U2d so it might be more recent in South Asia that U2a and U2b.

    Not sure about U8c.

    1. The proposition here is that AASI itself has some kind of western ancestry. pre-AASI would be the pure east Eurasian ancestry in this scenario.

      >U2c because U2c is a sister clade to West Asian U2d so it might be more recent in South Asia that U2a and U2b.

      Seems that U2c is defined by a 152 mutation among others. IDK if this is the same 152 as the one found in U2e and U2d (known as U2+152, discussed in the same 2008 paper which links U2c and U2d together), but if it is true then U2e, U2d and U2c would be a part of that U2+152 group. Can someone verify if U2c is indeed closer to U2d and U2e? Okay just looked it up and I see some diagrams showing 2 descendants of U2- U2a’b and U2c’d’e in multiple websites. Would be nice if Razib could confirm or rebuke this claim of U2c’d’e being a thing. If this is true, then we can narrow down the mtDNA which accompanied H1 to India down to mainly U2c + U8c, U2a’b could be a different story.

  8. M has some very deep divergences, as does H. Some ancient samples in Mesopotamia are M4, even though today it is found primarily in India. Similarly, M3 seems to peak in higher caste women from the Northwest of India. M1, on the other hand, is hard to distinguish. It shows a West Eurasian concentration, especially with ancient samples, but is also found in Tibet. Despite the populations sizes and diversity, there isn’t much study on it. The same goes for ydna H.

    It isn’t implausible that some clades of M represent the original inhabitants of Indian from the Pleistocene, while others represent Mesolithic additions, or Neolithic migrations.

    1. Interesting. In general I think though M is associated with our non West Eurasian ancestry, whether that is Paleolithic or Meso/Neolithic. Most is probably AASI related while a minority might be East Asian proper or even as a result of migrations from the West.

      1. M is absolutely massive, so to associate with with any particular ancestry does not make sense to me. The reality of named clades has more to do with the original sampled reference populations, which were European, than any intrinsic diversity. There are probably more M2 individuals than H1 individuals and M2 is much older than H2, but the former is only one letter and a number away from L3, while the latter is 4 letters and 2 numbers away from L3.

        We don’t really have much on the substructure of AASI, but it was not necessarily 100% Andaman/Hoabhinian. There are Mesolithic West Eurasian mtDNA groups in Dravidian women, which are indicative of a cline and West Eurasian component. H may have been well defined into NW Indian, S Indian, and Central Asian groups. Some were AASI, some may not have been.

        1. @DaThang
          What kind of community is Yadav? Wikipedia says they are peasant-pastoral communities. You’ve mentioned they are not different from chamars autosomally.

          1. Yeah not very different from chamars. One minor difference is chamars having more shahr ba2 ancestry while yadavs have more ba1. The amount of sintasha and extra aasi are nearly equal.

  9. Also I have an opinion in this but do people think ydna P (Yana RHS’ lineage) is East Eurasian, West Eurasian or neither? What about y F?

    1. P has to be east Eurasian of some kind. Divergent examples are found in Andaman and Philippines (through the local negrito ancestry). On the other hand, it is entirely absent from upper paleolithic European and other western Eurasian populations who have not mixed with ANE.

      Kind of expecting to hear about some K2b (if not P itself) in proto-AASI before 30,000 BP in this decade because of both the connection to negritos (K2b2) and Papuans (K2b1).

      1. Modern DNA has fooled us before. Remember when R1b was considered to be West Asian and ended up being European after all?

        I find it weird to think everything under K2 is Eastern when pretty much everything other F is more likely to be Western (G, H, IJ, K1)

        1. Things were different back then, there is a lot more data now, it isn’t perfectly complete either though it is much better. It would be very surprising to find a haplogroup whose most divergent sub-groups are entirely within east Eurasians to have originated in a west Eurasian population. These Andaman and Negrito east Eurasians don’t have a hint of west Eurasian influence AFAIK but ANS has obvious signs of east Eurasian influence of some kind. On the other hand, the groups with the divergent R1b still had some kind of ANE admixture.

          It also depends on when east and west Eurasians began to separate concretely. The age of G, H, IJ and K might be older than that, so when K* itself formed it could have gone both ways with the east Eurasian group being the origin of K2*.

          1. I still have my doubts on that so we’ll see. Ancient DNA trumps everything else.
            I clearly hope you’re wrong and P ends up being West Eurasian. Imo Its also possible K2 predated the split of East and West Eurasians. I mean Ust-Ishim was K2 and only marginally closer to East Eurasians than West Eurasians and not particularly close to either. I believe the same is true for Oase-1. Ust-Ishim is 45000 years old which is pretty close to the origin time of K2 as a whole.

    1. If F is East (as in associated with Han related populations not just geographically) then isn’t everything east? I mean F is the ancestor of pretty much every West Eurasian lineage.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits